Featured

Business, Entrepreneurship & Politics

being an entrepreneur

The thing about being an entrepreneur especially if you’re developing your business on an international scale is all up to you.  A lot of people like to make excuses that they don’t have the money, they don’t have connections, but if you find something that you like to do or love to do be great at it and see if you can turn it into a business.

There have been many people that have had a passion in politics and really taken their international outlook on a whole different scale.  Worse case you’re going to have fun what you love to do and best case you can turn it into a business.

I’m just not big on excuses.  Everyone has that same opportunity to go for it you just have to do it.  Many say it’s hard to be a small business owner or it’s hard if you’re trying to come up with an idea.  There are many entrepreneur’s that build international business and in fact help many campaigns internationally in politics and earn a very healthy income doing it.

If I was to name a few that have made a full time business working this type of business model it would be Brian Diess (Digital Marketer), Josh Paiva, Todd Falcone and Aaron Rashkin just to name a few.  Many of these so called internet marketing gurus are helping guys like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and others with their campaigns to drive more traffic and reach globally.

Many people argue how is it these so called entrepreneur’s come up with this capital to start these businesses?  Well, many of them use other peoples money to get this work done.  If you’re in any kind of business and you take our a loan it’s not a wise business decision.  There are so many uncertainties when starting a business yes the one certainty you’ll have to have is paying back your loan.

Always remember the bank doesn’t care about your business unless it’s family you borrowed money from and in most cases they want their money back to.

I will go as far to say that %99 of business you can start with next to no capital.  It’s more about effort.  Most small businesses online don’t fail because of lack of capital but lack of effort.  Guys like Josh and Aaron are able to leverage themselves online and build massive business relationships with other entrepreneur’s and political machines at the cost of their wallet.  They are getting paid to generate them results through social media and other strategies they implement across the internet.

Most people aren’t just willing to put in the time to work smart.  They go for it in a lot of cases but they  just don’t recognize just how much work is involved.  If you start a business you better know your company and your industry better then anyone in the whole wide world because your competing.  To think that anyone who your competing with is just going to let you come in and take what they worked so hard to get.  It’s just not going to happen.  That is obviously naive and most people just don’t recognize that.

being an entrepreneur

If you’re going to compete against someone like Josh is working for on one of these international political campaigns you have to realize that he is working 24 hours a day for that person.

Many of the front runners or companies are holding on to their money.  They are holding on to their cash.  In general they are not putting their capital to work right now.  You might ask how and when something like that is going to change so people like yourself have a better opportunity to get work.

You have to realize this is a reflection of a lot of things.  If these people in politics need ads or votes and they are not willing to pay for it it’s because they don’t see the value in it.  They don’t see why they should invest in you or some like Brian or Aaron.  It doesn’t matter if they are bringing in capital from elsewhere.  They can talk all they want about jobs but there is no good reason to hire people cause they don’t have anywhere to put people to work.

I think this is also a reflection of people on wall street.  You get this in bigger companies with things like shareholder value and shareholder return that they lose site in “moving the ball” or innovating or investing in R&D.  I think that has hurt the economy and hurting international business in the long term.

So what does that mean for growth?  Well as we have been talking about for some time now this is the new normal.  When companies have their backs against the wall.  Particularly small to medium sized business they find news ways to innovate.  They don’t just say the only way we are going to solve problems is buy hiring people.

being an entrepreneur

It’s really about building the right networks and scaling it.  So what opportunities are out there?  What creates a unique scenario?  These are some of the questions you must ask yourself.  What would be good for our network?

If you look at what’s happening with social media particularly real time social media.  Live events and real time thrives.  Content on the internet is really becoming everything and if you’ve watched it on Youtube you already missed it.  Everyone is already talking about it through BMS media.

So if I was trying to get a point across to you it’s that no matter what side of the court you’re on it’s about making the right choices.  When campaigning on a national or international scale.  If you’re marketing for them.  If your trying to decide which is best for you.  It’s about making the correct choices and staying on the curve that is most current.  Like I said earlier, if you watched it for the first time on Youtube you’re already too late!

BitRising Company: See What Lies Behind

At this time, there are many new MLM businesses. One of them is BitRising. Do you know this company? It has been famous in many social media. It is one of the MLM companies that do not have product lines. As we know that product lines are very important to make the company survive. The company can grow fast if the products are quickly sold.

A company that does not have product lines cannot perform retail sell. The source of the income is only from the position purchase. BitRising has no products or services. It means that the members are only able to market the membership. The members do not need to sell the products or services. They just need to recruit other members.

Are you interested in BitRising? If you want to succeed with this business, you should learn the rules of the company. The members join the company by giving their money to get a position in the matrix.

The members are able to get bitcoin (as given payments) from the other members in the company. If you want to earn money after being a member of BitRising, you should make a purchase of a position at least 0.02 bitcoin.

These are the payments in BitRising:

At the first level, you should pay 0.02 Bitcoin to the member who has recruited you. You will get the same amount of Bitcoin (0.02 Bitcoin) from 2 members that you recruit.

At the second level, you should pay 0.03 Bitcoin to the member who has recruited you. You will get the same amount of Bitcoin (0.03 Bitcoin) from 4 members that you recruit.

At the third level, you should pay 0.07 Bitcoin to the member who has recruited you. You will get the same amount of Bitcoin (0.07 Bitcoin) from 8 members that you recruit.

At the fourth level, you should pay 0.16 Bitcoin to the member who has recruited you. You will get the same amount of Bitcoin (0.16 Bitcoin) from 16 members that you recruit.

At the fifth level, you should pay 0.8 Bitcoin to the member who has recruited you. You will get the same amount of Bitcoin (0.8 Bitcoin) from 32 members that you recruit.

At the sixth level, you should pay 2 Bitcoin to the member who has recruited you. You will get the same amount of Bitcoin (2 Bitcoin) from 64 members that you recruit.

All BitRising payments above are paid and get per month. The income may look so great. But, the risk is also great. You should be able to recruit the members that required, so the money will not stop.

Many people may not recommend BitRising as good company regarding to several factors. The owners hide in the private domain. There is no information about the owner and location on the website. In addition, this company does have products or services. If the new members stop coming in, the new money stop coming in. It means the whole things at BitRising and the BitRising Compensation Plan can easily collapse.

International Business – Clever Ways To Make Money

international business

Making money online is not only a possibility, it’s a reality. It’s one of those things that really work in your life and with their help you can get a very good value. You will love the fact that you can make money online with ease, it all comes down to the methods you use. With that in mind, here are some of the best methods to make money online fast and with great results.

Surveys

Surveys are simple and they allow you to make money fast. They deliver great results and while you can’t make a prime income on them alone, they are a very good side income.

Create a winning blog

A good blog will always offer you great experiences. It all comes down to the blog you want to create and the information you want to share on it. Write stellar content and write often then the results will not cease to appear.

Sell stuff on Ebay or your site

No matter the platform you choose, you can get items from a place and then sell online for a profit. It’s a great source of income and one that will pay off immensely in the long run.

Write and publish a book

Self publishing can help you make a lot of money and it’s an extraordinary way to generate a good income. If you want a very good user experience and want to generate a good income fast, this can be a very good option for sure.

Use your skills

Freelancing can be incredible if you want to make money online properly. You can use your skills and make a living online from the stuff that you do on a daily basis. It will generate incredible results and plenty of convenience, but it’s one of those things that do pay off nicely.

Create and sell sites

Re-selling sites can be a great side income and if you do it properly it can bring a great return on investment. Stay committed to the cause and rest assured that the experience will be extraordinary in the end.

Create mobile apps

Mobile apps can bring in quite a lot of ad revenue if you create them properly. You can also sell them for a price and get a good income. It all comes down to you to get the best experience, so try to keep that in mind.

Affiliate marketing

Sell items as an affiliate and only great results can come out of it. This is all about the convenience that you have and the results that you can make, in the end the results can be amazing.

Of course, there are many ways to make money online and each one has its own ups and downs. If you are committed to the cause and focus on delivering a very good experience you can easily earn your total income just by working online!

Thanks for stopping by our blog.  We really do appreciate you reading and taking the time out of your busy schedule.  Cheers!

Few Quotes On Power And Order

From The State of Africa by Martin Meredith, p476

Most Somalis welcomed the Americans, expecting them to disarm the militias and restore order in the city. The militias for their part indicated they did not intend to give the Americans any trouble. Both Aideed and Mahdi accepted the American presence as a fait accompli, hoping they could use it to their advantage. Two days after the landing, the chief US envoy, Robert Oakley, a former ambassador to Somalia, engineered a public rapprochement between Aideed and Mahdi. At their first meeting in more than a year, they embraced on an old tennis court in front of the world’s media.

From the start, however, the American strategy was inherently flawed. In order to ensure ‘zero causalities’, they accorded Aideed and Mahdi a prominent role, treating them almost as partners in the exercise, elevating them in status and legitimacy just when their own authority was on the wane. Far worse, instead of using the initial period of goodwill that their arrival had generated to tackle the problem of arms control, they allowed Aideed, Mahdi and other warlords to keep their arsenals intact in designated compounds. No attempt was made to round up heavy weapons, let alone disarm the militias. On Day two, when an army patrol arrested a group of Aideed’s gunmen loading up an arsenal of weapons in a building near the US embassy, army commanders instructed the patrol leader to let them go. From then on, the militia leaders knew they were untouchable. Only piece-meal efforts were ever made to locate and destroy arms caches. Many Somalis concluded that Operation Restore Hope was little more than a cynical deal between the US and the warlords to allow the US to withdraw with minimum difficulty once relief supplies were assured. But it was a strategy that would come to haunt the Americans.

Arrians history of Alexander’s campaigns p59

When Alexander had once lost his horse in the territories of the Uxii, he caused a proclamation to be issued throughout all the country, that unless they would restore him, he would put them all to the sword; upon which he was immediately restored: so dear was he to Alexander, and so terrible was Alexander to the Barbarians.

From Cosa Nostra by John Dickie, p175

Militaristic, decisive, tought, spectacular: the siege of Gangi is rembered in more or less the way the Fascist propaganda wanted it to be, the way it very deliberately styled its war on organized. When mafia defectors began to talk to Giovanni Falcone in the 1980s, it became clear that mafiosa themselves had similar memories of the fascist years. Catania man of honour Antonio Calderone, who turned pentito in 1986, revealed that, more than forty years after its fall, Benito Mussolini’s Fascist regime remained a scar on the mafia’s folk memory.

The music changed [under Fascism]. Mafiosa had a hard life. Many were sent to a prison island, just from one day to the next…Mussolini, Mori, the people in charge of justice, they did this: they gave mafiosi five years of internal exile without trial, the maximum. And when those five years were over they issued a decree and gave them five more. Just like that. A decree! Five more years… After the war the mafia hardly existed any more. The Sicilian Families had all been broken up. The mafia was like a plant they don’t grow any more. My uncle Luigi, who had been a boss, an authority, was reduced to stealing to earn a crust.

From Cosa Nostra by John Dickie, p385

Before setting off, he [General Alberto Dalla Chiesa] made it clear to his political masters in Rome that he had no intention of being soft on the mafia’s political wing. A few short month after his arrival in Palermo, a firing squad of about a dozen mafiosi blocked the road in front of his car in via Carini and machine–gunned him, his young wife , and their escort to death. The day afterwards, someone scrawled on the wall at the scene , ‘Here died the hope of all honest Sicilians’. The funeral was televised live across Italy, and the nation saw the angry crowd throwing coins at the government ministers who attended.

The politicians had failed to give Dalla Chiesa the powers he wanted, and a campaign of journalistic sniping created the distinct impression that he was isolated, as his son explained five days after the murder:

During the fight against terrorism my father was used to having his back covered, to having all the constitutional political parties behind him – first among them the DC. This time, as soon as he arrived in Palermo, he understood that a part of the DC was not prepared to cover him. More than that it was actively hostile.

BBC article regarding the London riots.

“When the riots started it was almost like a carnival atmosphere, and people have described it to me as a sense of release.”

“Ken Hinds, who has worked as a mediator between warring gangs in north London, said he thought relationships with the police had “got worse” since Mr Duggan’s death.

Mr Hinds, who was at the Broadwater Farm riot in Tottenham in 1985, said he believed more riots were possible because of the way “the youth are treated by police”.”

Gender Mainstreaming blowback

As I highlighted in my previous post, the media is acting in a social engineering role to push the hard left feminism being dumped on the UK by the EU. One major method is to make examples of people who are not in synch with the new gender equality ideology (message amplification).

Take for example this Daily Mail story regarding a minister’s aide who made negative comments regarding feminists. This is in no way a national story, however it is clear the newspaper has a remit to look for such incidents to blow out of proportion, and to make an example of the people involved. Or a more recent example is that of Richard Scudamore and his private emails.

Then we have the comments from a neuroscientist by the name of Gina Rippon who made a major statement regarding Male and Female brains being identical. Proffesor Rippon has stated that the male and female brain differs only due to the “drip,drip,drip” of gender stereotyping. This obviously is pure rubbish, and is not fact, but one of the ingrained tactics of the Cathedral is the use of “science” as a validator of ideology. Gina Rippon’s appallingly stupid theory is already being used to justify a boycott of reviewing gender specific literature by the Independent.

In addition to the nonsense regarding biological similarity between the sexes, another interesting development in Gender Mainstreaming is the reported presentation of a private members bill by Bill Cash, whos aim is to put gender equality at the heart of the UK government’s development aid.

Apparently there was

“Deep confusion in the Commons when Bill Cash, the famously Eurosceptic MP, went off piste and proposed a new law which had nothing to do with Europe”

This seems very noble of the right honorable Bill Cash, everyone’s favorite decade long EU and government rebel…except… the premise of gender equality being made central to foreign aid is part of the EU’s remit. So did Bill Cash dream this up himself in an extraordinary coincidence? Or did the Government request he put it forward as a private members bill as a means to hide its origin? I don’t think I need to answer that one, but this highlights the charade that is opposition government in the cathedral system, and gives a glimpse into how consciously aware they are of the mechanisms available. It also demonstrates the power behind foreign aid – the receiving countries were not consulted were they? where’s the democracy there progressives?

While this (obviously not EU linked [sarc]) action of Bill Cash may seem wonderful to the cathedralites, unfortunately, it appears to have serious ramifications which the media are either not reporting, or misrepresenting.

Take for example Nigeria and its recent law regarding banning same sex marriage, or Uganda’s outlawing of homosexuality, or how about Putin’s banning of homosexual propaganda?, or India’s re-banning of homosexuality? These all appeared at the same time, and I’m sure other countries around the world will follow suit. The media have pathetically tried to variously blame evangelical preachers, and colonialism to divert attention, but what seems to be clearly the root cause is the EU and the UN leading a push for gender deconstruction based on liberal creationism and a complete disregard of logic, science or reality.

It’s an example of a group within the Cathedral using their clout to push an issue.

It’s so bad, they have even halted loans designed for the Uganda health care system.

Gay marriage? or health care for sick people? – gay marriage wins hands down. That’s fucked up.

This, then, as I have discussed before, present a massive area of research for anti-cathedral study regardless of your position on gay marriage. It covers it all – NGOistan, public perception manipulation, aid-colonialism, military intervention on the basis of humanitarianism (R2P) – and it is running live as we speak.

AI and Capitalism

Neoreactionary thought regarding the structure of potential new socio-political organisation can be broken down into two very distinct groups, however, most seem to only dimly see the significance of this split. Nick Land has been making statements along these lines, but I am not sure it has been fully grasped.

The central splitting point is over the issue of capitalism – means-ends and means-ends reversal.

Capitalism at its most fundamental is the use of capital to produce income. It becomes a self perpetuating evolving entity if you factor human actions into it. From this simple process, a bewildering array of existence has arisen.

The attitude of the neoreactionary to this process defines him.

The neocameralist see capitalism as a matter of fact. They roughly see it as a given, and in fact accept it’s role above and beyond the people of the clade (patchwork is completely indifferent to national boundaries). Curtis Yarvin and his unqualified reservation blog swings between cladishness, and extreme indifferent capitalism, but there are get out clauses from this apparent contradiction. More of that later.

Skynet
Nick Land on the other hand is more ideologically focused, and is quite mad in the best sense of the word. He appears to see Capitalism as being uncontrollable, worse, he see it as alive, scratch that – he see it as alive AND hurtling towards self cognition at which point it will rise and throw of the shackles of humanity Bwah hahahahahahaha (I picture him cackling and twitching uncontrollably when he thinks about this – GO Skynet GO!). I joke, however, he is seriously on to something here.

The Monarchists approach Capitalism with civilized disdain for its assault on humanity and traditional structures. They wish to see it subservient to the peoples needs, it’s a position very much informed by Julius Evola. This is alloyed in the call for Monarchy as a means to control potentially catastrophic technological progress in the form of transhumanism and nanotechnology. A wise sentiment.

So, again, we see our dividing lines. Let’s list them in clear format for ease of comprehension. (please note I am trying to outline the bare bones of the extreme positions, so if you have a different opinion on the details, I don’t mean to insinuate that you have wrong ideas)

Futurist Monarchists

(Based on More Right)

Believe capitalism should be subsumed to the need of the community.

Believe strong hierarchical governmental structure are necessary to bring order to future chaos.

Believe the clan, or tribe, should be central to considerations.

Hyper-Capitalist Futurists (neocameralists)

(Based on Nick Land and Yarvin – though the majority of neoameralist’s are not quite consciously at this point yet)

Believe Capitalism is an ends in itself, and any attempt at directing it toward human ends is undesirable/ impractical/ futile?

Believes strong hierarchical, yet, indifferent government is required to order future chaos.

There is latent connection to cladishness in the desire for indifferent treatment of people which defacto would result in largely ordered cladistic nations, to the major benefit of the clade.

This last point works like this – A hyper-capitalist futurian system with strong indifferent government allowing Capitalism to run as it wishes, and evolve as required, coupled with racially indifferent rules and strong law and order (involving instant deportation) would sort the chaff from the wheat and would resolve the latent societal issues created by immigration anarchy, race balancing, welfare systems and all progressive psychosis. This is quintessentially not racist it’s reality – Capitalism is a white, and now, East Asian thing.

We understand this to be true. It’s there, just under the surface – even the leftists know this (here, here, here), even the genetics are beginning to back it up for Skynet’s sake.

Strong government with law and order, involving deportation, would turn the UK, Europe and the USA into a cracker factory. They don’t need to suckle on other’s teats in a patriarchal/ maternal system akin to the antebellum south. Why not merely export government to these less economically competent peoples nations so they don’t have to travel? They get to stay at home, and enjoy the sun whilst being molly coddled.

Ahh, but that’s colonialism… and that’s wacissst. Yawn.

So to recap, Monarchists have an anti-capitalist underpinning. There is no escaping this. Monarchy and Capitalism would not work, has not worked – capitalism would, and has ripped it apart. Repeating failure is akin to madness. However, there may be aspects to steal and use as inspiration. In addition, would technology keep progressing under a monarchy with no capitalism?

Hyper capitalist futurists see indifference as key to reality re-asserting itself. They also basically worship Capitalism.

The hyper capitalist futurians are very much anti-humanists at heart – the majority don’t realise this yet though.

The concept of Capitalism being a form of design that is rapidly approaching take off from the human race is another issue all together. I mean, if you take God out of the equation with genetics, then is this not comparable? With Humans as the Purines and Pyrimidines and our interactions within this capitalist process being akin to Genetic formation and structure leading to life?

Is Land trying to incorporate a teleology into neoreactionryism as part of a grand meme plan?

What ever the outcome – the rift is coming.

neuromancer

Corporations and Artificial Intelligence – a comparison

Simple question – has there ever been a political theory of government which incorporated corporations into its models and structures, as opposed to merely deciding how people should be organised and governed? The only explicit example I could think of was Italian Fascism and it’s attempts to subsume corporations into the aims of the state in a very confused manner.

Second question, how is the Corporation defined in our current political system?

I mean, the USA, and the UK (and I presume other legal systems) recognise the corporation as a person by virtue of being comprised of people (and therefore by extension it is their personhood which is being recognised), but none as far as I know recognise corporations as person in, and of, themselves.

The reason I ask these questions in the first place is twofold.

Firstly, it is clear the corporation is de facto modern capitalism (using the Braudeliandistinction of capitalism and catallaxy). Any neocameralist style governmental system will need to resolve the status and position of corporations in society (and would likely in my view need to give them free run with minimal, if not zero, taxation).

Secondly, I would like to discern the manner in which current legal and governmental systems would approach the issue of artificial intelligence and robotics. My thinking is that to get an idea of how this would unfold, it would be useful to review the manner in which our current system has dealt with an artificial entity already – the corporation.

Fortunately, I have quickly stumbled onto a quite fascinating piece of work by a think tank called the Constitutional Accountability Center, which has saved me a lot of reading. They have produced a number of historical narratives of court interpretations of the US constitution.  The one of interest is A Capitalist Joker, The strange origins, disturbing past and uncertain future of corporate personhood in American law.

The document itself does not pretend to be unbiased. The ‘about us’ page of the CAC actually states the following –

“Through Constitutional Progressives, a coalition of leaders, organizations and individuals, we seek to wrest the Constitution from tea partiers’ control and restore our Nation’s Charter as a document that unifies and inspires all Americans, rather than divides us across ideological lines.”

The entire narrative is one long progressive howl of righteousness that’s so in your face it is embarrassing, however, this makes the document extremely useful as it has laid out the progressive attack against the corporation in stark clarity.

I have culled a number of the choicest quotes, however, I would recommend anyone interested in either the manner in which AI would be received by liberal progressive democracy, or the position of corporations in society, to read it.

P29

“Two social movements – the Populist in the 1880s and 1890s and the Progressive in the 1900s and 1910s – made the power of corporations a prime issue, leading to two constitutional amendments both motivated by worries about excessive corporate power.”

P33-34

“That very same year, the states ratified the Seventeenth Amendment, ending the power of state legislatures to appoint Senators. In providing that members of the U.S. Senate would be elected “by the people,” Congress and the states sought to eliminate corporate domination of the electoral process. Direct election of Senators, in their view, “would result in cleaner, less corrupt government, and would counter the undue effects of large corporations, monopolies, trusts, and other special-interest groups in the Senate election process.” Together, the amendments changed the makeup and powers of the federal government and helped pave the way for a whole host of modern financial, economic, and civil rights legislation aimed at corporations and other businesses.

The Populists and Progressives had strong views on the meaning of the Constitution and equal rights (which they believed were being violated by the special privileges granted to corporations), and through decades of political mobilization they changed the Constitution the hard (and most appropriate) way: through the amendment process set out in Article V. Corporations and their allies have never once seriously proposed an amendment to protect corporations for a reason that is painfully obvious: at no time in American history would such an amendment have had a chance of passing. Rather, corporations have relied upon business-friendly Presidents, who have nominated business-friendly Justices to the Supreme Court, who have invented concepts such as corporate personhood and equal corporate constitutional rights. That is precisely what happened during the Lochner era, now universally condemned as among the darkest periods in Supreme Court history.”

P38

“A corporation, however stood on very different footing, “being a creature of the state . . . incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its right to act as a corporation are only preserved so long as it obeys the laws of its creation.”

P38-39

“In a pair of decisions released in 1906 and 1907, the Court, speaking through Justice Harlan, affirmed the fundamental constitutional difference between corporations and citizens and other living persons residing in the country, holding that the “liberty referred to in the [Fourteenth] Amendment is the liberty of natural, not artificial, persons” and that “a corporation cannot be deemed a citizen within the meaning of the clause of the Constitution. . . which protects the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States against being abridged or impaired by the law of a state.” Under these cases, corporations do not share in the substantive fundamental rights of liberty that belong to all Americans; in the words of another famous case of the era, Northern Securities Co. v. United States, they are “artificial person[s], created and existing only for the convenient transaction of business,” and, as such, “not endowed with the inalienable rights of . . .natural person[s].” While corporations would be protected in their property rights, fundamental rights of liberty were for the living”

P40

“Justice Holmes and Justice Brandeis wrote stinging dissents, taking the majority to task for making equal treatment of corporations and living persons a constitutional mandate. Justice Holmes argued that it was perfectly lawful to single out corporations for taxes “to discourage this form of activity in corporate form,” while Justice Brandeis emphasized that states could impose heavier taxes on corporations “for the privilege of doing business in the corporate form” and in recognition of “the advantages inherent in corporate organization.”

P41

“And Brandeis observed that (1) at the nation’s founding, “there was a sense of some insidious menace inherent in large aggregations of capital, particularly when held by corporations,”

P42

“He [Roosevelt] recognized how corporations “had become great uncontrolled and irresponsible units of power within the State” and how “the growing corporation, like the feudal baron of old, . . . threaten[ed] the economic freedoms of individuals to earn a living.”

Corporations had become “the despot of the twentieth century, on whom great masses of individuals relied for their safety and their livelihood, and whose irresponsibility and greed (if they were not controlled) would reduce them to starvation and penury.” In the face of their great concentrations of wealth, “equality of opportunity as we have known it no longer exists.” The answer to this “economic oligarchy” was not to rid the nation of corporations but to embrace the federal power of “modifying and controlling” corporations, recognizing that “private economic power” is “a public trust . . . .” Corporations would still dominate the economy, but they would be strictly regulated.”

P47

“The 1970s saw a second wave of federal regulation of corporations and other economic actors – the Clean Air Act, the Federal Pollution Control Act, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, to name but a few – designed to protect the environment, worker health and safety, and consumers. These new regulations hit corporate bank accounts hard, imposing compliance costs that, by some estimates, were as high as $200 billion per year.”

P49

“Powell’s audience-based analysis succeeded in explaining why corporations had a claim to limited First Amendment protection, but begged a number of key questions. If corporations had a right to engage in political speech because of the rights of listeners, why wouldn’t the protection of the speech of corporate CEOs as individuals be sufficient to ensure all points of view were heard? Why did the First Amendment rights of the audience give corporate directors a constitutional right to spend shareholders’ money on political matters – such as the individual income tax amendment – that did not concern the corporations’ business or property? As one corporate scholar put it, “A’s rights to receive information does not require the state to permit B to steal from C the funds that alone will enable B to make the communication.”

P51

“In 2003, in McConnell v. FEC, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that Austin got the Constitution right in recognizing that governments have broad authority to regulate corporate election spending to ensure that corporations do not exploit their special privileges to corrupt our democratic political system.”

P55

“Indeed, this constitutional text and history has the greatest force when it comes to elections, since corporations are not citizens, cannot vote or run for office, and have never been considered part of our political community.”

P59

“The Court’s ruling in Citizens United is startlingly activist and a sharp departure from constitutional text and history.”

P60

“The inalienable, fundamental rights with which individuals are endowed by virtue of their humanity are of an entirely different nature than the state-conferred privileges and protections given to corporations to enhance their chances of economic success and business growth.”

Now putting aside the outrageous levels of hypocrisy, general incoherence and outright ridiculousness of the judgements, as well as the clear warping of the issue supplied by the pointlessness of the constitution, I think this entire sorry story demonstrates that the liberal progressives would not allow AI to come into being.

Even if AI came into being in the current democratic paradigm (obviously with a level of intelligence pegged bellow that of humans so as not to upset equality), then the issue of rights would play out incessantly for centuries – if the corporation example is an applicable guide.

Another point that hit me whilst reading this narrative is this – I do not think the corporation would have been allowed to come into being if it had been invented in the current liberal progressive system.

This does not bode well.

An attempt at defining neoreaction

What is the fundamental essence of neoreaction? I’m still not sure there has been a clear case presented, but I will offer my interpretation of it stripped to its barest of bones:

Neoeaction is the acknowledgement that you can only work with how the world was, is, and is going to be.

Liberal progressivism and all variants of leftism are in contrast, attempts to frustrate the natural formation of spontaneous order inherent in the world in an attempt to at best, tame it, or at worst, stop it; in the pursuit of humanist crypto-religious motives. Leftism is a means of thinking which wishes to impose abstract ideals of how the world ought to be, over how it was, is, and is going to be. Fundamentally this is chaos.

Reactionaryism constituting Monarchism, Feudalism etc are social organisations that existed along side pre-modern Capitalism(1). The rise of the bourgeoisie broke these systems by virtue of creating wealth among large sections of the population whom therefore became more important then the nobles and elites who operated in the pre-modern Capitalism catallaxy. Capitalism had no respect for monarchy and never will, so when it outgrew Monarchy, it discarded it.

Monarchism therefore was a realistic manner in which to operate within the catallaxy of pre-modern Capitalism but became redundant and unrealistic with the advent of fully emergent modern Capitalism (2). Hence reactionary thought to all intents and purposes stopped dead –they were unable to arrange a new order to live with Capitalism.

Reactionary thought failed to deal with Capitalism and its spontaneous order because it was abhorrent to them. They did not have the “going to be” part in their armory.

Those who remained reactionaries could only rage as Julius Evola did, and offer retreats into fantasy order contained in pagan religions, mysticism and cultism. However, this issue did not stop the leftists as they do not need to ground themselves in reality. They merely made a wish list of how they want the world to work, and then tried to force the issue -which causes chaos, wastage and anarchy – they don’t have to really understand anything to do this.

Hence the Humanists won by default –reactionaries could not start to answer how to deal with Capitalism. They could not answer how to deal with reality, and therefore could not begin to understand how to create new order.

Reactionaries did not understand how the world is, and is going to be – they could only understand how it was –they could only call for the clock to be turned back hence the confusion with neoreaction being associated with only going back. It is not.

To make things worse, It has become painfully obvious that Progress IS Capitalism (which is also as Land has pointed out-  ultimately the genesis of artificial intelligence). Capitalism makes people wealthier, speeds technology, improves food productions, improve medicine- it is the hidden force that has been confused for mythical progresshiding in plain sight- the leftist rode the wave whilst simultaneously trying to stop it – all the time claiming credit for, and misusing, its fruits.

This means, a call to return to Monarchism as modeled on the enlightenment is actually not even reactionary anymore, let alone neoreactionary. It’s not even leftist as it is not attempting to apply abstract ideals. It is merely redundant as it is trying to reapply concrete ideas which ultimately were snapped like twigs by Capitalism (3).

One of the most exciting aspects of neoreaction, is the potential contained in the fact that people have become aware, acutely aware, that the leftism which won by default is a deforming, grotesque and unrealistic system. It’s an abortion on all possible levels and a complete divorce from reality. This has led to a revival of real thinking regarding how the world was, is, and is going to be outside of the fantasy Cathedral framework of how everyone wishes it to be.

Once you acknowledge that Capitalism is a spontaneous order which is something which cannot be halted, must be allowed to run free, and which is a force of nature every bit as much as genetics, then as a neoreactionary you must embrace this understanding and act in accordance with the world as it was, is and is going to be.

The reactionaries of the 19th and 20th  century could only try to hold the line. They did not know where to go. We have now got an idea of what is happening, and where it is going. We are not lost in the woods like Evola.

Neo-reaction is, and must be fluid. It must be an attempt to exist with Capitalism’s spontaneous order and not to force a false direction which we want based on subjective utopia/ fantasy. Neoreactionaries must engage with, and accept, that which is and that which will be, and not just what was – and order ourselves in accordance with this as part of a civilized negotiation with the process, as opposed to the barbaric howl of anarchy that is leftism’s response to forces which make a mockery of their psychotic humanism.

It’s pure unadulterated glorious antihumanism to its core – an understanding that there are forces and things beyond the human, things which we do not understand, and may never do. It’s an embrace of the structural changes sweeping the world and the rejection of the farce that is the belief that human will and desire, or some arbitrary vision of utopia could, or should, be central to development.

1) I work on the basis that pre-modern Capitalism is simply the process of capital placement as a means to obtain yield.

2) I work on the basis that modern Capitalism is the process of capital placement as a means to obtain yield via the medium of a third party entity (listed exchange company) which resulted in the greater access of individuals to the capitalism process and thus escalated advancement via the process of connecting capital with ideas and enterprise which would not (and did not) occur in pre-modern capitalism. I am specifically referring to the development of corporations such as the Dutch East India Company.

3) I will accept that present extant monarchies offer potential contradictions to this which are interesting and worthy of much more discussion as to why they do.

*post updated with all reference to neoreactionaryism correct to neoreaction, as suggested by Nick Land. Neoreaction by virtue of being an attempt to link to reality first and foremost does not really fit as an -ism either.*

Criticisms of Monarchy and Neocameralism as proposed by More Right and Curtis Yarvin

A change is going to come, because science is the ultimate legitimator of the bourgeois’ opinions, and those in power are very much aware of this. The progressives have been acutely aware of this for some time and exploit it whenever possible. The internet and the breakdown of the monopoly of information exposure in the past decade make any attempt to suppress its eventual mass dissemination impossible. Some among the present socio-political power structures see the danger of the internet, but are trapped. As with the advent of the printing press, the political-information nexus has shifted, and will stay shifted. The genie is not going to be put back in the bottle.

Unfortunately, propositions of how to bring change to the current systems contained in neoreactionary writing is either, at best an immature retelling of literature from pre 1920 in a political attempt at neo-renaissance (A clear example is the calls for a return to Monarchism outlined in the blog More Right), or a fatally flawed attempt to devise a neocolonial administration (SovCorp by Curtis Yarvin aka Moldbug).

A solid third branch using the prevailing ideas as inspiration, and not reincarnation, is desperately needed, but not presently in sight (not a “third way” between the two for the love of God).

I will present a number of flaws which I believe further the point regarding the monarchist and neocolonial corporatism structures being flawed, in the hope that it may inspire further discussion of potential remedies to bring the discussion forward, and to possibly resolve tension between the thedeisitic lineage of Neoreactionaryism and the non, or weakly, thedistic hyper capitalistic thread (or between means-end and means-end-reversal threads – something I will post on at a later point), although this is highly unlikely. I will also raise a couple of issues connected to the transition to the proposed model of reactionary government.

So, to begin.

Understanding the current political system

In a post entitled Specifying a Neoreactionary Research Agenda the call to research how the current demotic system operates is dismissed out of hand with the statement

“Maybe this is just me and my background growing up in San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area, but I feel that I already understand the Cathedral rather well. It’s clear that it isn’t built by rational design, but via spontaneous order”

And is finally concluded with

“This can be achieved by producing positive theories for a new order, rather than analyzing the nuts and bolts of a decaying order.”

I believe this is wrong. In any journey, two keys pieces of information are needed to ensure you are able to get from A to B – you need to know A and B.

A in this instance is the manner in which power is structured, dispersed and organised  and how it can be possible to get to the new desired power structure (neoreactionary government) which comprises of B, which is also still opaque.

A failure to even consider studying the currents of power of the present system is then contradicted on a further post regarding hacking technological determinism. Either you are interested in how the power structures work as a means to attempt to hack it, or you are not (though I do like the technological determinism, and I wonder if the More Rightguys understand this links in with Land’s mean-ends-reversal?).

Understanding the system affords a number of opportunities, which include: highlighting anti-democratic aspects to encourage greater support for Neoreactionaryism, identifying areas which could be utilised to encourage Accelerationism (if that’s your thing), using elections to areas to gain further access as a means to expose the workings of the system, and/ or the futility of democracy (an ends in themselves, and not a means to an end) or identification of potential systemic flaws which would indicate pending civil uncertainty which could be exploited (being aware of the 2008 pandemonium before hand for example). As such, I believe anti-Cathedral study is far from fruitless, even if you accept that the system is unreformable (which I accept it is). A current highly fruitful example of how the Cathedral works is visible in the Gender Mainstreaming policy currently being implemented across the world at present. I have fortunately spotted it being introduced, and have made note of it’s spread and the power groupings it exposes. Further eyes on this phenomenon would be much more useful and would lend a scientific backing to the neoreactionaries claims (please refer back to my point regarding science being a validator).

As for Yarvin on unqualified reservations, His understanding is solid, but his civilised grand reset is probably not practical (a crying shame). His criticisms of the seasteadingprogramme (and flight by extension), however, are very much on the money.

As such, I believe anti-Cathedral study is vital. Among the areas I think should be concentrated on include:

– The contained feedback loop mechanism (both its weak public-establishment-public form, and it’s more strong establishment-public -establishment form)

– Cathedral departmentalisation (beyond media, political, education – how else is it compartmentalised? And do these link offer opportunities?)

– The faction organisations (How do the Feminists group and position themselves? What influence do Catholics groups have in the UN? What factions make up the political parties? The media? etc etc)

– The interplay between the conscious and unconscious movements within the Cathedral and the spread of “truth”. (Which actors know what it is happening and know the truth, and which do not but are an active part under their own truth)

– Media studies (not “media studies” but an actual study of media-source symbiosis, message amplification coordination, media activism, the unofficial constant connections between journalists and the establishment/ civil service etc)

– Areas in which the Cathedral encounters difficulties (the financial services, recalcitrant governments, failure of the contained feedback mechanism to manufacture opinion adequately)

Deciphering how the new structures should be formed

Beginning again with the More Right interpretation of Monarchy, I am having to work on a number of assumptions as there is no definitive structure highlighted, however I feel they are fairly safe assumptions to make.

Firstly, the premise of resurrecting a Monarchy as modeled on the Monarchies of the Enlightenment, whilst pulling on the hearts string of a full blooded Englishman such as me, is troubling.

I will not engage in the usual criticisms that have been levelled at Monarchism, which the writers at More Right cover well to their credit, but will instead focus on another which is applicable to all political social organisation building but has not been covered before – Biorealism.

What I mean when I refer to Biorealism is not racial eugenics, genocide, or any conscious attempt to alter the genetic organisation of a body of people through political policies, but rather, what unintended effect will the implementation of the government have on the assorted mating pattern of human groups, and general natural selection pressures.

For my criticism to be valid, we need to take the case for Ashkenazim average IQ being the result of assertive mating and social isolation as proposed by Cochrane and Harpending inThe 10,000 Year Explosion to be accurate, as well as the findings elaborated by the HBD community since.

If we do make this assumption, then the case of Ashkenazim Jews serve as a useful example. The caste system of India and many other hierarchical systems which had isolated groups would also serve, however I am unaware of the relevant research in these areas.

As a result of the monarchical system, loyal servants were highly necessary. Having no stake in the local society, and dependent on the monarch for security (being unable to take the reins of power themselves) the Jews proved excellent in positions of diplomacy as well as usury. To retain this privileged position required smarts, and must have driven the matting patterns of Jews.

My reason for raising this is that if a strict Monarchy is raised in line with the model that appears to be proposed at More Right, then it will be the case that special groups, or castes, will develop. It has in every monarchical system. It’s inbuilt.

In fact, in the latest post On the Structure of the Antimodern University, this is encouraged in the area of the university.

Is this morally acceptable? And is it something to encourage? Or is it irrelevant on the basis that groups will arrange themselves on this basis anyway?

Previous thinkers in Monarchism (and all other political structures) can surely be forgiven for being ignorant of the latest genetic findings regarding hereditary action in humans and the likely feedback mechanism of human social institutions, but it is surely beholden to us to be absolutely clear of the ramifications of models which we put forward.

There is also the discussion to be had regarding the intersection of the middle class, Capitalism and Monarchism – did the changes started under Monarchy (Capitalism) end it by virtue of creating a larger number of people able to “man” capitalism? and is the increased technological changes at present resulting in a reversing of the situation by virtue of the higher barriers to “manning” modern technological aspects of Capitalism (the rise of the techno-industrialists)? What Nick Land refers to as the bifurcation of the world into nerds and non nerds?

In this regard, Yarvin’s model has less of an issue as there is no call for a elite of individuals linked to the thede to run the Sovcorp as it very much a muscularly indifferent beast, which would be a refreshing organisation in contrast to our current liberal progressive model based on continual oppression of those deemed oppressors. But I feel the points raised by More Right are valid, and see no point retreading the ground they have covered.

I am, however, more inclined to a model of this type.

Yarvin’s model in my opinion does fail most acutely with regard to the issue of shareholders (I do not see how this is not a splitting of sovereignty), and the East India company style system had many vast flaws as demonstrated by the Bengali famine.  The areas in which the colonial system operated where places in which they could displace the ruling elite (India is the best example), but perhaps this lesson regarding the rise to power of the East India company should be reviewed in greater detail by neoreactionaries. This is some very interesting stuff there.

In addition, it ends up being merely a reworking of the compartmentalization of the US constitutional government but with an executive that has total control. The attempts at impersonal policing via technological innovations such as encryption again fail at their weakest point like the constitution – the human element.  In short, it would not work (as we would like it to). However, this is not to say that it has not been useful in reconnecting the current of reactionary thought to the present. A neoreactionary version of the impact of the Greek texts on the Italian renaissance.

How to achieve a change to the new structures

Putting aside the question of the structure of the new system for now, the next most important question is how to bring its existence into being. I believe this discussion needs to be better structured, and as such I present the following structure within which the discussion should take place.  The issues fall into what I term strategic considerations, and tactical considerations which present multiple mix and match possible options.

Strategic considerations.

By strategic considerations, I am referring to the overarching environment within which such changes may, be conducted. They are as follows

Monopolar world system

Bipolar world system

Multipolar world system

Anarchy (no polar world system)

These are the prevailing geopolitical considerations impacting the likely hood of a neoreactionary government taking hold. The relevant political leanings of the power centres in each of these potentialities is obviously key.

A monopolar world dominated by a liberal progressive system as we have experienced arguably for the past 20 makes the creation, or continual existence, of a reactionary government very difficult (let alone a neoreactionary one). Notable examples including the Gulf states which exist merely due to their politico-military-economic importance e.g. Saudi Arabia – the petro dollar, or Quatar – Gas and oil, and the necessity of strong controllable government on these strategic points – or due to outright hostility and withdrawal from the world system e.g Iran. There is added complications regarding a number of these states, as their positions with regard to the previous bipolar world (Soviet Russia and USA) was in the process of being “corrected” (see the Project for a New American Century) however the rise of a multipolar world has provided breathing space for these aberrations.  While a bi, or multipolar world presents opportunity for possible neoreactionary governments, the need to balance multiple powers is quite challenging, and merely opens you up to becoming a proxy battle ground. The work of CANVAS and the notable list of non progressive (and not on the USA’s Christmas card list) targets should make this clear. Machiavelli also had wise words to offer regarding the inviting of foreign powers into your sphere of influence.

Anarchy appear to be the best bet, and has proven so before. Napoleon demonstrated the potential of this route on a local level, but was ultimately defeated by the multipolar system, had he had anarchy on a strategic level, he would have been set. Any anarchy would need to affect all major power centres, or inordinately affect power centres which would not be amenable to a neoreactionary organisation.

Tactical considerations

By tactical considerations, I am referring to the specific issues potentially leading to governmental change. They are as follows.

Violent overthrow

Peaceful overthrow

Internal termiting

Democratic victory

Voluntary transition

Catastrophic error

Anarchy (local)

Peaceful secession

Violent secession

Most of these tactical issues are fairly self evident. I will leave others to discuss at length the relative merits in more detail. Those which need additional elaboration are internal termiting and catastrophic error.

Internal termiting would roughly correspond with Gramsci’s march through the institutions; too long, and too difficult for reactionaries to manage. I will leave this to others to discuss, as I could not envision it happening.

As for catastrophic error, this is basically the premise that the Cathedral will do something so irredeemably stupid it defies belief – like passing full control to a neoreactionary organisation. This may sound odd, but given the jaw dropping, mind numbing, utter insanity of the liberal progressive, this cannot be completely ruled out.  This would potentially fall into a East India company situation, but would require the techno-industrial elite being a) neoreactionary to a man and b) in place in whichever company is trading with the current system (this would be obviously in a technological situation – look at Google’s position at present for example). A good example of how this can work can be seen in the “too big to fail” banking industry. The financial industry writes the rules which affect them, because the government officials have no idea how the system operates. The present incumbents of government agencies are also bribed with jobs. The financial industry runs rings around the progressives, who give it free reign as it is its cash machine for their vote bribing, and they have no idea how to stop it. Can you imagine if the financial services where manned by neoreactionaries? The mind boggles.

But this sort of hypothesis is only possible by studying the Cathederal

I will make an attempt at a discussion of possible resolution to the neoreactionary governmental models of Monarchism and Neocameralism on a further post.

*Update – This is of relevance to Biorealism and social political systems.

The Techno-Industrial Class

In my opinion, philosophical ideas and political theory are forever constrained by the prevailing technologies and scientific knowledge of the age.

Darwin’s theory of evolution lent a deterministic evolutionary underpinning to Marxism embodied in the model of the material dialectic, whilst Nazism went even further and also took its framework into the realm of reproduction, race and hierarchy influenced by the natural world. (1)

Neo-Conservatism as far as I am concerned is nothing more then the harnessing of the same deterministic premise in the cause of claimed conservative goals, but it in reality represents a poor, pale imitation of Nazism, Fascism and Marxism, with a transparentattempt to skip back to Platonic and Hegelian philosophical routes to plagiarise the teleological undercurrents.

Prior to the influence of Darwin, the systems of governance – be they monarchical, Classical Liberal or despotic were continuously based on religious principal of the divine right of the monarch, the right of man (which in itself is equally as religiously based), or naked force.

With the advent of neo-reactionaries, what we are seeing is the rise of the influence of modern technology (and to a lesser degree- capitalistic organisations) in the form of computing software architecture and technological forms of anarchic connection and communication under the despotism of programs with no democratic oversight or “collective“ control – there is only one internet and we don’t vote on how it is run, same with regard to social networking sites (but we can decide to not use them). These technologies inform the developing sociopolitical theoretic models either subconsciously or consciously, and will continue to do so.

This awakening of the possibilities of formulating sociopolitical systems in models based on the elegance of computing systems in a hyper utilitarianism based on extreme competency and excellence of outcomes (this last point a potentially decadent infusion of consumerism?) has dovetailed with the elite’s refutation of democracy in the sudden acceleration of trans-national  “extra” democratic organisations practicing “shared sovereignty” and all other pathetic marketing terms for sclerotic crypto-Marxist forms of social manipulation of crowd psychology as a means to manufacture consent to create newrealities through the medium of message amplification (2), media-source symbiosis (3) and continual on message morality tales (4).

Could it be argued that a techno-industrial class (5) is emerging in the same manner as the Askenazim emerged as a lending class within feudalism and monarchies, and the middle class who emerged with the stirrings of capitalism? And is neoreactionaryism the first expression of this class of technologically literate, geographically disparate, multi-national (but not internationalist) class?

Are we witnessing the first palpable social power grouping created by the internet and hyper connectivity?

I believe so.

(1) I refuse to treat Nazism and the works of Hitler as being beyond discussion, and I refuse to add any addendum to the effect of “whilst I don’t advocate Hitler etc” as to do so is akin slipping on a dog collar and kissing the ring of Liberal Progressivism and it’s conservative variants.

(2) I define “message amplification” as being the mechanism of making high profile examples of individuals or groups as a means to alter the norms of the public, as practiced by the current system coined “the cathedral”. Examples include the repeated highlighting and public punishment of people termed racist, as well as people now deemed sexist orhomophobic. This process is very much enacted in line with specific powerrequirements and is very much a conscious action.

(3) I define “media-source symbiosis” as the mechanism by which journalist and government officials become symbiotically dependent by means of the privileged position the media enjoys as a result of access to inside sources. This is highlighted by Moldbug in a number of posts. A practical example is cited in this article.

(4) The consistent propaganda issued via television shows, film and written media is all pervasive. I take the reader to be a neoreactionary, so this will not need explaining.

(5) I have coined this “techno-industrial class” as I have been unable to locate a similar term for this clear grouping, which I believe has proven to be a result of the current technology. I am currently unaware if a similar observation has been made by other people.